Category Archives: Laches

Exmark Mfg. Co. Inc. v. Briggs & Stratton Power Products Group, LLC

Docket Nos. 2016-2197 WALLACH, CHEN, STOLL January 12, 2018 Brief summary: DC decision vacated and remanded as expert opinion on damages was insufficient, and to determine whether Briggs’ prior art defenses were “litigation-inspired” (Halo, US 2017). Summary: Briggs appealed the … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Damages, Expert Testimony, Indefiniteness, Laches, Obviousness, Reexamination, Willfullness | Leave a comment

Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc. et al.

Docket No. 2014-1856, 2014-1857 DYK, WALLACH, HUGHES March 31, 2016 Brief Summary: DC decision that “Romag is not entitled to recover Fossil’s profits” for trademark infringement “as Romag did not prove that Fossil infringed willfully” affirmed under Second Circuit precedent … Continue reading

Posted in Damages, Laches, Trademarks | Leave a comment

Hedwig Lismont v. Alexander Binzel Corporation et al.

Docket No. 2014-1846 LOURIE, REYNA, CHEN February 16, 2016 Brief Summary: DC grant to SJ to ABC that Mr. Lismont’s inventorship claim was barred by laches was affirmed since he could not rebut the presumption of laches resulting from the … Continue reading

Posted in Inventorship, Laches | Leave a comment

SCA Hygeine et al. v. First Quality Baby Products, LLC et al.

Docket No. 2013-1564 En banc opinion (PROST, NEWMAN, LOURIE, DYK, O’MALLEY, REYNA; CIP/DIP: HUGHES, MOORE, WALLACH, TARANTO, CHEN) September 18, 2015 Brief Summary: On the “critical question” of whether § 282 applies to both equitable and legal relief, the court … Continue reading

Posted in Damages, Laches, Royalties | Leave a comment

SCA Hygeine Products Aktiebolag et al. v. First Quality Baby Products, et al.

Docket No. 2013-1564 REYNA, WALLACH, HUGHES September 17, 2014 Update: see Sept. 18, 2015 en banc decision Brief Summary: FC panel affirmed DC finding of laches (more than six years delay without reasonable excuse) but reversed as to equitable estoppel … Continue reading

Posted in Equitable estoppel, Laches | Leave a comment

Integrated Technology Corp. v. Rudolph Technologies Inc.

Docket No. 2012-1593, -1618 RADER, CLEVENGER, MOORE November 4, 2013 Brief summary: Decision of infringement under DOE was reversed due to prosecution history estoppel (narrowing amendment, no defenses (Festo)). Summary: Rudolph appealed DC judgment of infringement (non-willful and willful, $15.3 … Continue reading

Posted in Attorney's Fees, Doctrine of equivalents, Laches, Prosecution History Estoppel, Willfullness | Leave a comment